JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla and Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, for the appellants and A.G.A, for State of U.P. 2. These appeals have been filed from the conviction and sentence passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, dated 10.07.2014, in S.T. No. 43 of 2010, State of U.P. Vs. Anurudh Singh and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 322 of 2009, under Section 4 98-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Sirsakalar, district Jalaun), sentencing the appellants for ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 3 04-B IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10000/- each under Section 4 98-A IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. On the complaint of Mahaveer Singh son of Shyam Lal Singh, resident of Kheriya Sindh, P.S. Amayan, district Bhind (PW-1) (the father of the deceased), HM 839 Onkar Nath (PW-6) registered an FIR of Case Crime No. 322 of 2009, under Section 4 98-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 09.11.2009 at 4.30 hours, at police station Sirsakalar, district Jalaun, against Anuruddh Singh (husband), Lallan Singh @ Omendra Singh (father-in-law) and Smt. Ram Murti (mother-in-law) of the deceased Arati. It has been stated in the FIR that his daughter Arati was married to Anuruddh Singh son of Lallan Singh @ Omendra Singh, resident of village Bhagaura, P.S. Sirsakalar, district Jalaun, on 02.03.2008, according to Hindu rites. He had given agreed money and everything in dowry at the time of marriage, according to his capacity. His daughter had gone to her matrimonial house for four-five times till then. His daughter used to inform him and her maternal uncle Suresh Singh, about her torture at matrimonial house as they were demanding a Hero Honda Splender motorcycle as an additional dowry. Due to that reason father-in-law of Arati, namely Lallan Singh, his wife and his son Anuruddh Singh had killed her on 08.11.2009 at about 11.00 hours and thereafter informed him. When he came, he found his daughter as dead. He gave information in this respect at Police Outpost Nyamatpur. 4. Inquest of the deceased was conducted by Rajesh Prasad Tiwari, Tahsildar (PW-5) on 09.11.2009 between 10.30 hours and 12.40 hours. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. When he came, he found his daughter as dead. He gave information in this respect at Police Outpost Nyamatpur. 4. Inquest of the deceased was conducted by Rajesh Prasad Tiwari, Tahsildar (PW-5) on 09.11.2009 between 10.30 hours and 12.40 hours. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. K.K. Gupta (PW-4) along with Dr. M.C. Verma on 10.11.2009 at 15.30 hours, in which cause of death was mentioned as "shock and hemorrhage due to ante-morten burn and other injuries". After inquest, SI Shrikesh Bharati (PW-10) prepared memo of Gas Cylinder, Chulha, Regulator, and half burnt pipe (Ex-Ka-16), ashes from the place of occurrence (Ex-Ka-17) and half burnt sari and blood stained bed sheet (Ex-Ka-6). K.D. Chaudhari, Circle Officer of Police (PW-9), started investigation. He prepared site plan (Ex-Ka-15) on the instruction of one Jitendra Singh as neither the complaint nor the accused were present. He recorded statements of several villagers, including Ram Prakash Pal (DW-1) and SI Shrikesh Bharati. Thereafter, investigation was transferred to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hari Ram (PW-8), who after investigation submitted charge sheet against Anuruddh Singh (husband), Lallan Singh @ Omendra Singh (father-in-law) and Smt. Ram Murti (mother-in-law), under Section 4 98-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 12.01.2010. On committal, S.T. No. 43 of 2010 was registered against the appellants. Sessions Judge framed charges on 19.05.2010. The appellants denied charges and claimed trial. Subsequently the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge. Additional Charges were also framed on 29.01.2011, under Section 3 02 read with Section 3 4 IPC against the appellants. 5. Prosecution examined Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), the first informant and father of the deceased, Smt. Kishori (PW-2), mother of the deceased, Sanjeev Singh (PW-3), the brother of the deceased, Dr. K.K. Gupta (PW-4), who conducted autopsy of the deceased, Rajesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-5), who conducted inquest of the deceased, H.M. Onkar Nath (PW-6), to prove check FIR, Suresh Singh (PW-7), the maternal uncle of the deceased, Hari Ram (PW-8), second Investigating Officer, K.D. Chaudhary (PW-9), first Investigating Officer and SI Shrikesh Bharati (PW-10) to prove recovery memo. The appellants in their statements under Section 3 13 Cr.P.C. admitted date of marriage but denied the prosecution case. They stated that Lallan Singh @ Omendra Singh was a B.M.S. Doctor. The appellants in their statements under Section 3 13 Cr.P.C. admitted date of marriage but denied the prosecution case. They stated that Lallan Singh @ Omendra Singh was a B.M.S. Doctor. He had his clinic at Kalpi for about 25 years, where he had constructed a house and was living there along with his wife Smt. Ram Murti. He had another clinic at Nyamatpur, where he used to sit for some time. At village Bhagaura, they had their ancestral house and land where his father, mother, brother and brother's wife were residing but they were not residing there. Anuruddh was doing business of tent-house in the name of "Murti Tent-house & Furniture house" at town Amayan district Bhind and was studying at village Adokhar, which is at a distance of 2-3 K.M. from village Kheriya Sindh, where he was living with Arati. Arati went to village Bhagaura one week prior to the incident as Arati was pregnant and wanted to take blessings of her elders before delivery. Arati was accidentally burnt, while cooking food, due to leakage of gas. Two-three months prior to the incident, Arati demanded Rs. 20000/-, through a letter, from her father's house, which was brought by her brother Sanjeev Singh. Lallan Singh had given Rs. 15000/- to Sanjeev Singh and obtained his writing on backside of that letter. That letter was written in hand writing of Arati and receipt of Rs. 15000/- was signed by Sanjeev Singh. Original letter has been filed. At the time of incident, Anuruddh Singh had gone to Chhatarpur (MP) to his sister's house. The appellants also examined Ram Prakash (DW-1) Pradhan of the village Bhagaura and Sanman Singh (DW-2), maternal uncle of Lallan Singh. 6. Additional Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 10.07.2014 held that the deceased Arati was married to Anuruddh on 02.03.2008. Occurrence took place on 08.11.2009 at 11.00 hours and FIR was lodged on 09.11.2009 at 4.30 hours. As the complainant was resident of a village at a distance of more than 100 K.M. from place of occurrence as such after receiving information, they came to village Bhagaura and lodged FIR as such there is proper explanation of delay in lodging FIR. Place of occurrence is kitchen of the house of the accused at village Bhagaura. Arati died due to burn and other ante-mortem injuries, within seven years of the marriage. Place of occurrence is kitchen of the house of the accused at village Bhagaura. Arati died due to burn and other ante-mortem injuries, within seven years of the marriage. From ante-mortem injuries and smell of kerosene oil from dead body, it is proved that her death was not accidental. Although Mahaveer Singh (PW-1) was declared hostile but he had admitted his signatures on the complaint. In his subsequent statement, he had supported the prosecution case. Smt. Kishori (PW-2) was declared hostile. Sanjeev Singh (PW-3) and Suresh Singh (PW-7) have fully supported the prosecution case. From evidence of PW-1, 3 and 7, it was proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture by the appellants for demand of one Hero Honda Splender motorcycle as dowry. From evidence of the prosecution, the charges against the appellants under Section 3 04-B, 498-A, IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were proved but charge under Section 3 02 IPC was not proved. On these findings, he convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 4 98-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal has been filed. 7. The counsel for the appellants submitted that Anuruddh Singh was the only son of Lallan Singh @ Omendra Singh and Smt. Ram Murti. Anuruddh Singh was studying at village Adokhar, where Arati was also studying. They were knowing each other from before marriage. Lallan Singh @ Omendra Singh was a B.M.S. Doctor. He had his clinic at Kalpi for about 25 years, where he had constructed a house and was living there along with his wife Smt. Ram Murti. He had another clinic at Nyamatpur, where he used to sit for some times but after clinic hours he used to go back to his house at Kalpi. The appellants had their ancestral house and land at village Bhagaura, where father, mother, brother and brother's wife of Lallan Singh were residing. At the time of occurrence, Anuruddh Singh was studying at village Adokhar, which is at a distance of 2-3 K.M. from village Kheriya Sindh and was living along with Arati, the deceased, at town Amayan, district Bhind, where he was also doing part-time business of tent-house in the name of "Murti Tent-house & Furniture house". Arati was pregnant and wanted to take blessings of her elders before delivery. Arati was pregnant and wanted to take blessings of her elders before delivery. For that purpose, she went to village Bhagaura one week prior to the incident. Arati was accidentally burnt, while cooking food, due to leakage of gas. At the time of incident, Anuruddh Singh had gone to Chhatarpur (MP) to his sister's house while Lallan Singh was at his clinic at Nyamatpur and Smt. Ram Murti was at Kalpi. On information of the incident , they came to village Bhagaura. Relation of the appellants with Arati was very cordial. There was neither any demand of dowry nor she was ever tortured for it. Two-three months prior to the incident, Arati demanded Rs. 20000/-, through a letter, from her father's house, which was brought by her brother Sanjeev Singh for the purposes of her father. Lallan Singh gave Rs. 15000/- to Sanjeev Singh and obtained his writing/signature on backside of that letter. That letter was written in the hand writing of Arati and receipt of Rs. 15000/- was written and signed by Sanjeev Singh. Original letter has been filed. After accidental death, the first informant wanted money from the appellant and filed FIR on false allegation. Father and mother of the deceased have not supported the prosecution story. As against father and mother, statements of brother and maternal uncle of the deceased was not reliable. There is no consistency between their testimonies. The appellants also examined Ram Prakash (DW-1) Pradhan of the village Bhagaura and Sanman Singh (DW-2), maternal uncle of Lallan Singh but their testimonies have been illegally ignored. Trial Court illegally held that there were ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. They relied upon commentary of Modi on "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology", in which it has been mentioned that "when a body has been exposed to great heat, it gets cooked and becomes so rigid with the limbs flexed, arms fixed and fingers hooked like claws that it assumes an attitude of defence, called the "pugilistic" or "fencing" posture. They relied upon commentary of Modi on "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology", in which it has been mentioned that "when a body has been exposed to great heat, it gets cooked and becomes so rigid with the limbs flexed, arms fixed and fingers hooked like claws that it assumes an attitude of defence, called the "pugilistic" or "fencing" posture. If the heat is applied to very great, cracks and fissures resembling incised wounds of several inches long occur in the skin and tissues, but no blood clot, nor infiltration of the blood, is found in cellular spaces, and blood vessels and nerves are seen stretching across the fissures, as they are not usually burnt." They submitted fractures in ribs were also as a result of deep burn, while removing the body from place of occurrence up to post mortem house. Dr. K.K. Gupta (PW-4) in his statement admitted that if smell of LPG gas is mixed with smell of decomposed body then it would be like smell of kerosene oil. Trial Court has illegally found that death of Arati was homicidal. The conviction and sentence of the appellants is illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined record. Offence of "dowry death" is generally committed in complete secrecy, inside the house. It has become a large social evil, in this country. By Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983), Parliament introduced Chapter XX-A into Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) containing Section 4 98-A, in order to "deal effectively, not only with cases of dowry deaths, but also cases of cruelty to married women by their in-laws". Conspicuously, this section does not employ the word "dowry" at all. In essence, the amendment makes matrimonial cruelty to the wife punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years together with fine. The Explanation to Section 4 98-A defines "cruelty" in clause (a) to the Explanation to first mean wilful conduct as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life. Since there is no allusion to dowry it converts cruelty, which would ordinarily entitle the wife to seek a dissolution of her marriage, into a criminal act. Since there is no allusion to dowry it converts cruelty, which would ordinarily entitle the wife to seek a dissolution of her marriage, into a criminal act. Parliament restricted the subject offence to only cruelty perpetuated on women since their emancipation, in meaningful terms, largely remains a mirage. Secondly, broadly stated, clause (b) to the Explanation of Section 4 98-A IPC, postulates harassment meted out to the woman with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Although this clause does not employ the word "dowry", it is apparent that its object is to combat this odious societal excrescence. Act 46 of 1983 simultaneously incorporated changes in Section 174 (3) CrPC pertaining to the suicide or death of a woman within seven years of her marriage; it mandated the examination by the nearest civil surgeon of the body of the unfortunate woman. In addition thereto, Section 113-A was introduced into the Evidence Act, 1872, by Clause 7 of Act 46 of 1983, specifies that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or his relative and it is shown that she has committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Realizing difficulties of prosecution in proving guilt of "dowry death" beyond reasonable doubt, as required under criminal law, Parliament by Act No. 43 of 1986 made drastic amendments. In Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3 04-B, in Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 8-A and in Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B were added, making it mandatory for the Court to raise presumption of dowry death, if its ingredients are shown to exist by the prosecution. 9. A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court after considering previous judgments, in V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588 , held that in order to attract application of Section 3 04-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows: 1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. 2. Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. 3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. 5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. On proof of the essential ingredients mentioned above, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 3 04-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. 10. Supreme Court in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724 , held that in Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, Parliament has, in the case of a wife's suicide, "presumed" the guilt of the husband and the members of his family. Significantly, in Section 113-B which pointedly refers to dowry deaths, Parliament has again employed the word "presume". However, in substantially similar circumstances, in the event of a wife's unnatural death, Parliament has in Section 3 04-B "deemed" the guilt of the husband and the members of his family. The use of word "shown" instead of "proved" in Section 113-A and 113-B of Evidence Act, 1872, indicates that the onus cast on the prosecution would stand satisfied on the anvil of a mere preponderance of probability. In other words, "shown" will have to be read up to mean "proved" but only to the extent of preponderance of probability. Thereafter, the word "deemed" used in that section is to be read down to require an accused to prove his innocence, but beyond reasonable doubt. The "deemed" culpability of the accused leaving no room for the accused to prove innocence was, accordingly, read down to a strong "presumption" of his culpability. The accused is required to rebut this presumption by proving his innocence. The same view was reiterated in V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588 . 11. The "deemed" culpability of the accused leaving no room for the accused to prove innocence was, accordingly, read down to a strong "presumption" of his culpability. The accused is required to rebut this presumption by proving his innocence. The same view was reiterated in V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588 . 11. A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 , held that "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be "soon before death" if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough. Supreme Court again in Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2015) 2 SCC 629 , held that the proximity test i.e. there must be material to show that "soon before her death" the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with dowry". The facts must show the existence of a proximate live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the victim. "Soon before death" is a relative term and no straitjacket formula can be laid down fixing any time-limit. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before death" is left to be determined by the courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In cases related to dowry death, the circumstances showing the cruelty or harassment are not restricted to a particular instance, but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct of cruelty or dowry harassment must be "soon before death". There should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. Similar View has been taken in V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588 . 12. The phrase "preponderance of probability" came for consideration before Supreme Court in N.G. Dastane (Dr) v. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SCC 1534, in which it has been held that the normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Section 3 , a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note: "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue"; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear", Blyth Vs. Blyth, (1966) All E R 524. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged. 13. In light of aforementioned principles, evidence of the present case has to be scrutinized. In present case, findings of trial court that Arati (the deceased) was married to Anuruddh Singh (the appellant) on 02.03.2008 and Arati died on 08.11.2009 at 11.00 hours at the house of the appellants due to burn injuries do not suffer from any illegality. Argument of the counsel for the appellants was that it was an accidental burn at the time of cooking food due to leakage of gas through connecting rubber pipe. SI Shrikesh Bharati (PW-10) inspected the spot along with Tahsildar, Rajesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-5) at the time of inquest on 09.11.2009 between 10.30 to 12.40 hours. Argument of the counsel for the appellants was that it was an accidental burn at the time of cooking food due to leakage of gas through connecting rubber pipe. SI Shrikesh Bharati (PW-10) inspected the spot along with Tahsildar, Rajesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-5) at the time of inquest on 09.11.2009 between 10.30 to 12.40 hours. He took in possession gas cylinder, burnt pipe, gas stove etc. According to Rajesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-5) and Shrikesh Bharati (PW-10) place of occurrence was kitchen situated at first floor of the house. Thereafter, spot inspection was made by D.K. Chaudhary (PW-9) on 09.11.2009, who inspected the spot at the pointing out of Jitendra Singh, a neighbourer as none of the family member of the appellants or the first informant was present. He also prepared spot inspection map (Ex-Ka-15). He recorded statement of Jitendra Singh in case diary. According to Jitendra Singh, he along with Anuruddh went to kitchen and found that gas was leaking and burning at the place where it was connected with stove and due to which Arati was also burning. They feared that gas cylinder might burst as such could not dare to enter into kitchen. They made noise on which several villagers came. With the help of cover, they pulled out the cylinder from kitchen and put out the fire. In site plan, he had noted size of kitchen as 8' X 10'. Inside the kitchen, there was one slab of 20" in width in northern side at the height of 40" from floor and another half slab of 20" in width was southern side. On these slabs, goods relating to kitchen were kept. Gate of kitchen was in middle in eastern side. There were two windows, one in northern side and other in western side on which curtains of cloth were hanging. By the side of eastern wall there was a fridge. Gas stove was on slab in north-west corner. Cylinder was outside the kitchen and by the side of bathroom. Dead body of Arati was lying in middle of the room. In an area of 42" X 30", the blood, burnt clothes and mark of burns were found on floor. 14. In inquest (Ex-Ka-6), position of dead body was noted as "head towards west, legs toward east, lying in half left side, hand bent towards chest, left leg was straight and right leg was half bent. In an area of 42" X 30", the blood, burnt clothes and mark of burns were found on floor. 14. In inquest (Ex-Ka-6), position of dead body was noted as "head towards west, legs toward east, lying in half left side, hand bent towards chest, left leg was straight and right leg was half bent. Post mortem was conducted on 10.11.2009 at 15.30 hours. In post mortem report (Ex-Ka-5), dead boy was found in 'pugilistic appearance'. Hairs were loose. Abdomen was burst. Eye balls were plugging. Mouth closed. Kerosene smell was coming from clothes and body. The body was deep burnt all over body except left lower leg and foot. Burn was bone deep (bones also burnt). An incised wound in an area of 6 cm X 1.5 cm X Jaw deep, on left side of face just below left ankle mouth. Left 4th, 5th and 6th ribs were fractured. Mild carbon soot particles were found in larynx. A female fetus, of 2 K.G. (almost full term) length 38 cm, head circular 31 cm, hairs on head and nails, was found. Cause of death was noted as "Shock/haemorrhage due to ante-mortem burn and other injuries". Duration of death was noted as two days. This post mortem report is proved by Dr. K.K. Gupta (PW-4). 15. The defense version that the deceased was burnt due to leakage of gas from gas pipe is not liable to be accepted for following reasons. (i) Gas stove was in west-north corner on northern slab. In all probabilities, gas cylinder must be below northern slab, in west-north corner. In case there was previous leakage and LPG gas was diffusing inside the kitchen room and match was lit at that time, then fire must be spread in whole area of kitchen and cotton curtains hanging on both the widows must also be burnt but cotton curtains of both windows were not burnt. (ii) If leakage was from the point of gas pipe, where it is connected with stove then burn may not be so deep as was found on the dead body nor the there would be 90% burn. (iii) If after catching with fire, the deceased ran for saving her towards gate in eastern side and at that time she fell down, then her head must be towards east and not towards west. (iii) If after catching with fire, the deceased ran for saving her towards gate in eastern side and at that time she fell down, then her head must be towards east and not towards west. (iv) Dead body was lying in middle of the room and there was a long distance from gas cylinder and stove which were in north-west corner and flames may not touch the body of the deceased. (v) In an area of 42" X 30" on the floor, the blood, burnt clothes and mark of burns were found. Smell of kerosene was found coming from dead body and the clothes, shows that sufficient quantity of kerosene oil was pored on body for burning, which caused burn injuries up to bone deep. (vi) If the deceased herself had pored kerosene oil then empty pot of kerosene oil must be found in kitchen itself. (vii) Suggestion given to doctor that smell of decomposed body mixed with LPG gas would be like smell of kerosene oil is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as in burning from LPG gas only flame burns the body and no smell of LPG gas would come. (viii) Even if the arguments that incised wound and fractures of ribs were as a result of burn injuries, which were up to bone deep and in fact there was no ante-mortem injuries is accepted then also there is no explanation as to how bone deep injuries were caused although the leakage was from gas pipe and flames were limited at that point. From aforesaid evidence on record, it is proved that death of Arati was homicidal and not accidental or suicidal and findings of trial court in this respect do not suffer from any illegality. 16. Supreme Court in Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 733 , held that the body of deceased was found in pugilistic attitude. According to Modi when a body is exposed to great heat, it gets cooked and becomes so rigid that the limbs fixed, arms fixed and fingers looked like claws that it assumes an attitude of defence called the pugilistic or fencing posture. According to Modi when a body is exposed to great heat, it gets cooked and becomes so rigid that the limbs fixed, arms fixed and fingers looked like claws that it assumes an attitude of defence called the pugilistic or fencing posture. According to Taylor all muscles protein in the body is coagulated at temperature above 65°C. When a body is subjected to a temperature above the coagulation point, of the muscle protein, rigidity is produced which, if complete, is far more intense than that found in rigor mortis. In that case, the kitchen in which the lady was found lying was approximately 3 metres in length and 1.80 metres in breadth as recorded in Ex. Ka-35. In other words, the kitchen which had its door on the east was less than 10 feet in length and about 5.88 feet in width (north-south). She was lying prostrate on the floor in a space of less than 6 feet. The electric bulb in the kitchen was missing. As the panchnama shows, an empty container of kerosene was found in the kitchen. No match box was found inside the kitchen. The stove was neatly arranged on the shelf. Every other article and everything else was neatly arranged in the kitchen. This is not suggestive of suicide. She must have poured on herself kerosene. How much kerosene she would get from the stove? It is not possible to believe that she would pour the kerosene from the stove, light her clothes with a match stick, replace the stove on the shelf and get rid of the match box after setting herself in flames. And all this she must have accomplished in a dark kitchen with the window closed and the electric bulb missing. One has to be too credulous to believe such a theory which does not accord with probabilities even in a small measure. The medical evidence shows that the body was found in a pugilistic attitude and in a fencing posture. It means that the body must have got coagulated at about 65°C. For generating heat of this order, she must have drenched herself with a large quantity of kerosene or some other catalyst agent. How could such intense heat have been generated? The heat was so intense that her brain was cooked. It means that the body must have got coagulated at about 65°C. For generating heat of this order, she must have drenched herself with a large quantity of kerosene or some other catalyst agent. How could such intense heat have been generated? The heat was so intense that her brain was cooked. If some large quantity of catalyst had been poured on herself and fire had been applied by herself she would have been in intolerable and intense pain. She would have shouted and screamed. She would have run about. Again in Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar, (2001) 6 SCC 407 , it was held that burn injuries are normally classified into three degrees. The first being reddening and blistering of the skin only; second being charring and destruction of the full thickness of the skin; third being charring of the tissues beneath the skin, e.g. fat, muscle and bone. Be it noted here that if the burn is of a distinctive shape a corresponding hot object may be identified being applied to the skin and thus abrasions will have distinctive patterns but in the event a burn injury is the cause of death then 60% cases are of septicaemia and 34% cases are of bronchopneumonia. Where infection was by pseudomonas pyocyanea, spread to unburnt skin ulceration may occur, and internal infection by this organism is especially liable to damage the walls of blood vessels. Gram-negative shock may also occur. The external examination in the normal cases are found in the body being removed from a burnt building and in the event of such a removal the cause of death would be inhalation of fumes rather than septicaemia as noticed above. In the event the body is not removed from the room and the same remains in situ, an examination of the scene must be attempted, as with any other scene of suspicious death, note being taken as regards the position of the body, clothes remaining if any and identifiable objects in the room and so on. The examination of the burns is also directed to ascertain their position and depth, as to whether they were sustained in life or not, and whether their situation gives any indication of the path taken by the flames or the position of the body when the fire started. The examination of the burns is also directed to ascertain their position and depth, as to whether they were sustained in life or not, and whether their situation gives any indication of the path taken by the flames or the position of the body when the fire started. If the body is very severely burnt then all the skin surface may be destroyed, even sometimes making it rather difficult for identification of the body. A body that is badly burnt assumes the appearance known as ''pugilistic attitude' and this is due to heat stiffening and contraction of the muscles, causing the arms to become flexed at the elbows and the hands clenched, the head slightly extended and the knees bent. The appearance resembles the position adopted by a person engaged in a fight and has led on occasions to suspicion that the death occurred during some violent crime. In fact, of course, the body will assume this position when the fire started. The other aspect of the burn injury is that heat ruptures may be produced. These are splits of the skin, caused by contraction of the heated and coagulated tissues, and the resultant breaches look like lacerated wounds. They are usually only a few inches, but may be up to 1 or 2 ft in length. Normally they lead to no difficulty in interpretation, since they occur only in areas of severe burning, and normally over fleshy areas of the body, like calves and thighs where lacerations are uncommon. However, when they occur in the scalp they may cause greater difficulties. They can usually be distinguished from wounds inflicted before the body was burnt, by their appearance, position in areas of maximum burning and on fleshy areas, and by the associated findings on internal examination. Although shock due to extensive burns is the usual cause of death, delayed death may be due to inflammation of the respiratory tract caused by the inhalation of smoke. Severe damage, at least to the extent of blistering of the tongue and upper respiratory tract, can follow the inhalation of smoke." This view was again followed in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 18 . 17. Severe damage, at least to the extent of blistering of the tongue and upper respiratory tract, can follow the inhalation of smoke." This view was again followed in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 18 . 17. For conviction under Section 4 98-A and 304-B IPC the prosecution has to show (which mean to prove on a preponderance of probabilities) that there was demand of dowry and in that connection, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband "soon before death". Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), the father of the deceased, in his statement recorded on 30.08.2010, has not supported prosecution case but in cross examination, he has admitted his signature on the complaint, on the basis of which FIR was lodged. Smt. Kishori (PW-2), the mother of the deceased, in her statement recorded on 08.11.2010, has stated that the appellants were demanding vehicle. In her cross-examination recorded on 29.11.2010, she had not supported prosecution case. Thereafter, Additional Session's Judge framed alternative charges under Section 3 02/34 IPC against the appellants on 29.01.2011. Then these witnesses were recalled and again examined. 18. Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), in his statement recorded on 05.04.2011, has stated that his daughter was murdered on 08.11.2009 by the appellants inside kitchen of their house at village Bhagaura, due to non-fulfillment of their demand of motorcycle and for doing another marriage of Anuruddh. He got information relating to murder of his daughter through his relation Mahendra Singh of village Dahguwan on phone of his son Sanjeev Singh on 08.11.2009 at about 13.30 to 14.00 hours. On coming to know, he along with other person came to village Bhagaura on his jeep. Distance between his village Kheriya Sindh and Bhagaura is about 100-125 K.M. and they took two hours in reaching to village Bhagaura, where they reached at about 19.00 hours. After examining spot, he informed police of Out-post Nyamatpur. Then Head Constable of Out-post came on the spot and at that time no one was present there. Two police constables remained on the spot and he again went to police Out-post Nyamatpur at about 1.00 hours on 09.11.2009. Thereafter, he lodged FIR. The complaint was got written from Mahendra Singh. 19. Then Head Constable of Out-post came on the spot and at that time no one was present there. Two police constables remained on the spot and he again went to police Out-post Nyamatpur at about 1.00 hours on 09.11.2009. Thereafter, he lodged FIR. The complaint was got written from Mahendra Singh. 19. Smt. Kishori (PW-2), the mother of the deceased, in her statement recorded on 29.10.2012, stated that her daughter was murdered about two years ago by the appellants, due to non-fulfillment of their demand of motorcycle Hero Honda. Anuruddh used to beat her. They got information relating to murder of her daughter through master Mahendra. On coming to know, she along with husband, son, brother and other persons came to village Bhagaura. In cross-examination, she denied that after marriage, Anuruddh was living at her house. 20. Sanjeev Singh (PW-3) is the brother of the deceased. He has stated that at the time marriage, they had given seven lakhs in cash, seven tola gold and other domestic utensils of worth Rs. One lakh. In-laws of Arati were not satisfied with dowry. The appellants used to beat her and keep hungry and used to say that get a motorcycle to them otherwise they would kill her and marry Anuruddh again, in which they would get dowry of Rs. 20.00 lakh. Whenever sister came to his house used to inform them about the demand of the appellants and her torture by them. His father and maternal uncle went to village Bhagaura and assured the appellants to give Hero Honda motorcycle after harvesting crop but they were not satisfied and killed his sister before crop. The appellants killed his sister on 08.11.2009 and burnt her. At that time his sister was pregnant for about eight and a half months. They got information relating to murder of his sister through his relation Mahendra Singh on his phone. On coming to know, he along with his father, uncle, maternal uncle and other person came to village Bhagaura but the accused were present at their house. After lodging FIR, inquest was conducted which was signed by him as a Panch. They got information relating to murder of his sister through his relation Mahendra Singh on his phone. On coming to know, he along with his father, uncle, maternal uncle and other person came to village Bhagaura but the accused were present at their house. After lodging FIR, inquest was conducted which was signed by him as a Panch. In cross examination he has stated that partition between his father Mahaveer Singh and uncle Veer Singh had taken place in the year 2007 and in that partition no excess land than his share has been given to Mahaveer Singh nor he had to give Rs.63, 000/- to Veer Singh his uncle. At this stage the letter allegedly written by Arati for demanding Rs.20,000/- and on which Rs.15,000/- was given to Sanjeev Singh was filed as paper No.136 Ka. This witness had denied the fact that this letter was written by Arati his sister and he had further denied fact that he had received Rs.15,000/- and given in writing in respect thereof and singed it. 21. Suresh Singh (PW-7) the maternal uncle of the deceased had stated that Arati was married to Anurudh Singh on 2.3.2008 and he had attended the marriage ceremony. In the marriage Rs.7.00 lakh cash, articles of gifts worth Rs.1.00 lakh and 7 tola gold were given. In-laws of Arati were not satisfied with the aforesaid dowry and the appellants were demanding a motorcycle through Arati as an additional dowry, which they had assured them to give after harvesting the crops. The demand of motorcycle began after four months of the marriage and for non fulfillment of that demand they used to torture and beat Arati, which was informed by Arati to him. At the time when he and Mahaveer Singh had gone to the house of the appellants assuring them that they would give motorcycle, Arati was at her maternal house. On the assurance given to the appellants Arati was sent to their house and thereafter about one month the appellants had murdered her. At that time she was pregnant and baby also died. On the information relating to death of Arati, they went to village Bhagaura and from village Bhagaura they went to Outpost Nyamatpur and his statement was recorded by the Circle Officer. He was cross examined. In cross examination he had specified that before six months of marriage Tilak ceremony took place. On the information relating to death of Arati, they went to village Bhagaura and from village Bhagaura they went to Outpost Nyamatpur and his statement was recorded by the Circle Officer. He was cross examined. In cross examination he had specified that before six months of marriage Tilak ceremony took place. At the time of Tilak ceremony Rs.2.00 lakh cash along with other customary gifts was given. In the marriage on the occasion of Dwarchar Rs.2,50000/- was given and at the time of Bidai Rs.2,60000/- was given. 7 tola gold and other articles of gifts were also given at the time of marriage. After 3-4 months of marriage they began to demand a motorcycle as an additional dowry. He had stated that before death no complaint was made in respect of demand of dowry as well as torture. 22. From the statements of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 7, demand of motorcycle as additional dowry and torture for its non-fulfillment is proved. As held above, death of Arati was homicidal. The prosecution had proved all the ingredients of dowry death as such presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act, 1872 was liable to be raised against the appellants. The appellants had to rebut presumption by adducing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 23. So far as subsequent conduct of the appellants is concerned, it is admitted that Arati died on 8.11.2009 at 11-00 hours. According to the statement of Lallan Singh under Section 3 13, Cr.P.C. he was at that time at his clinic at Nyamatpur and he received information shortly after the death. Even then no information to police was given by the appellants. At the time of inquest as well as at the time of spot inspection by Investigating Officer, they were not present on the spot rather absconding which further shows their guilty conscience. 24. Argument of the counsel for the appellants that F.I.R. was lodged only for the reason to avoid payment of Rs.15,000/- advanced to Sanjeev Singh (PW-3) some days prior to the incident is not liable to be accepted. Even according to the appellants after marriage Arati was living with Anurudh Singh at Amayan. From the alleged letter on which payment of Rs.15,000/- was alleged to have been made, it appears that at that time Arati had to fill up examination form. Even according to the appellants after marriage Arati was living with Anurudh Singh at Amayan. From the alleged letter on which payment of Rs.15,000/- was alleged to have been made, it appears that at that time Arati had to fill up examination form. Thus, she was studying while living at Amayan but none of her writing could be adduced in evidence to corroborate this fact, rather Sanman Singh (DW-2) was examined to prove the handwriting of Arati, who was brother-in-law (Sadhu) of Veer Singh, uncle of Arati. He was not such a close relation to identify the writing of Arati. Thus, in the circumstances, the best evidence in possession of the appellants were withheld by them. 25. The appellants examined Ram Prakash (DW-1), who was Pradhan of the village Bhagaura. He stated that Lallan Singh alias Omendra Singh was residing at Kalpi, while his father, mother, brother and brother's wife were residing at village Bhagaura in the house where Arati had died. Hanumant Singh father of Lallan Singh and his wife alone were residing there. He admitted that Anurudh used to come to meet his grand parents to village Bhagaura. So far as testimony in respect of incident is concerned, he had stated that when he visited on the spot bahu (Arati) was lying dead in burnt condition and gas was lighting. They had pulled out the gas cylinder through khaptauriya. Thus his statement is not relevant in respect of death as by the time he visited the spot Arati had already burnt and died. Although he tried to show that Lallan Singh and Anurudh were not residing at the village Bhagaura but he admitted that occasionally they used to come there. Since at the time of incident Arati was living at village Bhagaura, therefore, in all probabilities the appellants must have been living there as she was in advanced stage of pregnancy and could not be left under the care of old grand parents. The appellants further examined Sanman Singh (DW-2) who was brother-in-law(Sadhu) of Veer Singh, uncle of the deceased. He had stated that Anurudh and Arati were living at village Amayan where Anurudh was doing tent business. He admitted that Lallan Singh was his sister's son. Apart from it nothing more was stated by him. As stated above at the time of incident Arati was living at village Bhagaura, his statement is not relevant. He had stated that Anurudh and Arati were living at village Amayan where Anurudh was doing tent business. He admitted that Lallan Singh was his sister's son. Apart from it nothing more was stated by him. As stated above at the time of incident Arati was living at village Bhagaura, his statement is not relevant. His statement to prove writing of Arati was also not relevant. Thus, appellants have failed to prove their innocence. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeals have no merit and are dismissed. The conviction and sentence dated 10.07.2014 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 43 of 2010, State of U.P. Vs. Anurudh Singh and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 322 of 2009, under Section 4 98-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Sirsakalar, district Jalaun) against appellants Anurudh Singh, Smt. Ram Murti and Lallan Singh @ Omendra Singh are affirmed. Appellant Anurudh Singh is in jail. He will serve out the sentence awarded as aforesaid. Smt. Ram Murti and Lallan Singh @ Omendra Singh are on bail. They are granted time till January, 15, 2017 to surrender before the court below and they will be taken into custody and sent to jail in order to serve out the remaining part of the sentence awarded to them as aforesaid. 27. A copy of the this order be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai for its compliance.